I did not think Obama was for universal health coverage... see message
Posted By: Amanda on 2008-06-16
In Reply to: Obama scary - Cathie
I thought he was just for a coverage to be available to all people - but not mandatory to take it. Am I wrong?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Universal health care and President Obama's real plan -
I see again that everyone is talking about President Obama's plan for universal health care and I once again feel the need to distinguish between universal health care and what the plan is that President Obama has campaigned for. I have copied and pasted part of the web page, but also included the link at the bottom of this for you to see the whole plan.
President Obama does not ask for universal health care where the government is in charge - he just wants the government to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and health insurance. Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not socialized medicine, government run healthcare, or universal coverage plans?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.
If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Someone has to pay for universal health care....
she knows that. Her plan will cost billions. The only way to pay for it is to force those who can afford it to buy it (as many choose not to so they can use that money for other things...and I don't mean eating...she knows that too). That is the one thing people who want socialized medicine, government-run health care don't realize. It is not FREE. If they don't get you in premiums they will get you in taxes...because who supplies the government with the money it spends...why that would be us, the taxpayers. What a concept. I don't know why Hillary saying she would not be opposed to garnishment should surprise anyone. That way when she hits us with higher taxes, they won't have to be quite as high. And don't think the "rich" can pick up the tab...they already pay way over 50% of the total tax money into the tills as it is, and there isn't enough money to go around. And while we are at it...show me a place in the Constitution where it says the government should provide health care, welfare, or anything like that? You won't find it. The founders were about less government, not more government. I don't understand why people would want to let themselves become tied to the government for their every need. Where does that place all the control? With the government, not with the people. Hello socialism, good-bye freedom. SIGH.
universal health care
Sorry, but I don't need that help. Having done my own research, I know that the health care system in Canada (your example) has major flaws, like ridiculous waits for even the most simple testing, not to mention the lack of choices for one's care, and that other countries have substandard care because of their universal systems. All this does is invite "country club medicine." Canadian citizens come to the US and pay out of their own pockets because their system does not work for them. If you think govt control is the answer to health care, you only need to look at what they have done to Medicare and Medicaid. Obama's health plan is one more component in his overall plan toward the socialization of this country. Hope you like it when your hard work and your paycheck does nothing BUT support others. Where is the incentive to work? Don't get me wrong; I do believe every individual should have access to health care. I also think every individual who is capable of contributing (working) should have to do so in order to reap that benefit, and I do not think government intervention is the answer. And your whole statement about the CEOs being rich makes me so nervous. What is your solution there? spread the wealth? She/he is not entitled to have more money than you? Yup, another step toward the socialization of this country. See how well that has worked worldwide.
I think there's a big misunderstanding about universal health care
And anyone that has had the cheapest medical insurance you can get knows this - just because you have insurance doesn't mean you're covered. It might cover doctor visits for sinus infections and such, along with certain prescription medications, but like the poster above said, God forbid you need something serious because the government can turn you down just as easily as an insurance company.
A friend of mine moved to the US from Canada because she found a lump in her breast. Her doctor in Canada told her to keep an eye on it and come back in six months. She waited and went back and the doctor told her he wanted to do a biopsy and to come back in four months for that. She came to the US for a second opinion, got a biopsy, was diagnosed with breast cancer, had surgery and recieved chemotherapy all in the four months it would have taken her to just have the biopsy in Canada. She has since become a citizen of the US and gave up her citizenship of Canada just for that reason. She is now a 6 year cancer survivor.
I don't want to see that kind of thing happen in this country and that's what we would get with universal health care. Agreed that something has to be done about the prices of medical treatment, but to put the government in charge of it is not the right way to go.
some universal health care info from
Oh my goodness, regarding universal health care, unfortunately these things are just not so. How are things worse off - everyone is covered, for everything, no matter how rich or poor, or sick. Will you have to wait longer, possibly, I don't know (do you have a reference for comparison) but you will be treated - absolutely no one is turned down who can derive benefit from treatment.
Losing your best doctors? Where are they going?
The government will pay for elective things like knee replacements, do pay for them every day.
If you have cancer and the treatment is experimental, there are drug trials (for free), provincial assistance programs (for free) and compassionate release programs via drug companies (for free). No "death certificates are signed" If you are not happy with your treatment, you can see another doctor, any doctor you choose, and no one will say you cannot have a treatment or see a physican because of money!
Mexico has universal health...how many have died
from the swine flu?
Universal health care is a frightening prospect.. sm
Ask anyone from Canada what they think of their health-care system and you're likely to be shocked. A friend's father has been waiting over a year on a list for a knee replacement, and another friend waited 42 hours on a gurney in the ER while having a heart attack. Nurses and doctors don't want to work there because the salaries are substandard and set by the government. Do you not think this is the direction we're headed in if Obama becomes president?
Obama's grandmother and the media coverage
I feel very bad that she is terminally ill. I have lost many close relatives myself and those have been the worst of times for me.
But, I feel his campaign has used this situation to his media gain.
Put it this way, if it was me and I found out my grandmother was so sick, I would have been on the first plane there (I don't have my own jet). What if she died before he got there? As I said, there were a few days of a delay in there where the situation has been reported repeatedly. If she was so sick, he should have just gone. Everyone would have understood.
There. I said it. Many may think it was heartless thing to say, but wouldn't you have just dropped everything and gone?
Biden could have taken on more in his absence.
Obama's universal healthcare will be SO much
nm
gee, one-sided U.S. news coverage...go figure....it's how Obama
Obama's universal plan failed miserably in other
nm
Obama's plan is just to ensure insurance availability for all - not universal healthcare - you na
x
Obama and health care.
Listen,
It is human nature to be scared of of something different, People will remain in jobs while their wages sink, afraid that things could be worse if they leave.
There are reasons this time around that the AMA, the American Cancer Society and namy other prominant organizations are encouraging a single payer system, the reason being that the current system in in a shambles, and serving less and less. The premiums are exhorbitant not only for individuals but businesses as well, the current system is severely crippling job grown, and as an aside if one is so fortunate as to have health insurance, well over 70% of legitimate claims are being denied routinely.
When things get to that point, and they have, it is better to swallow the fear and make some changes when the current system is in a complete shambles. The benefits far outway the fear of making changes to a severely flawed system.
Obama says you can keep your employer health care....
but if you don't have, the government will step in. Under his tax proposals, how long do you think business will be able to afford health care for employees? Not very darned long. So, in the end, he gets what he wants...government controlled health care. He has changed the way he described it to try to end around the socialism tag of universal health care. Nice try, but no cigar. He is not fooling me. But, I don't take every word that falls out of his mouth as gospel like some do either (and I am not singling you out specifically).
Obama's whopper on McCains' Health Plan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4530306.shtml
I have heard Obama say that every American will have health insurance
and while that is a lovely thought, it is not a realistic one. Look what happened with children in Hawaii. People began dropping their own private insurance in favor of the public insurance and caused the system to fail. Unfortunately, health care is expensive and cannot be guaranteed by the government without a price. I think that it is a nice plan, but will ultimately fail because we have a lot of lazy people who think that Obama is going to be their goose that laid the golden eggs. It's as if some people here (and it is the deep south) believe that if they vote for Obama, he is going to ensure that everyone drives a Cadillac and eats lobster. It is silly and unfortunate. These people are still living in FEMA trailers. Did you know some people actually steal them? Now--don't get me wrong, I am sure that there are some hard luck stories of people with health problems and such that cannot get out of their FEMA trailers, but the vast majority of them are just lazy. It has been three years.. but I digress. I think that radical government change happens very slowly and Obama is ushering it in. My opinion. Feel free to disagree, but I feel that these programs are stepping stones. Oh--and TriCare is the military plan.
Obama's top three health care campaign lies
By Phil Kerpen
Lie Number 1: I Won’t Tax Your Health Benefits
What Obama said on the campaign trail (Newport News, Va., October 4, 2008):
“So here’s John McCain’s radical plan in a nutshell: he taxes health care benefits for the first time in history… Well, I don’t think that’s right.”
What Obama says now:
Obama ally Sen. Max Baucus told the Washington Post that Obama is now willing to tax employer-provided health benefits. Baucus said: “Yeah, it’s something that he might consider. That was discussed. It’s on the table.”
Limiting or ending the tax-free status of health benefits makes sense if it’s used to cut other taxes and put all health insurance—employer-provided or not—on a level playing field. The existing benefit is an artifact of World War II-era price controls and creates a tax penalty for people who buy their own insurance.
But unlike the McCain plan, which would have taxed employer-provided health benefits and used the money to pay for a new health care tax credit, the plan now being considered by Democrats, including Obama, would tax employer-health benefits to fund increased government health care spending. For the 250 million-plus Americans who already have health insurance, this is a raw deal—they pay more taxes and get nothing in return.
Lie Number 2: I Won’t Force You to Buy Health Insurance
What Obama said on the campaign trail (Janesville, Wis., February 13, 2008):
“The main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t.”
What Obama says now:
President Obama sent a letter to Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy and Max Baucus yesterday that says—using the new code word “responsibility” to refer to the same kind of mandate he slammed in Hillary’s plan:
“I understand the Committees are moving towards a principle of shared responsibility — making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost. I share the goal of ending lapses and gaps in coverage that make us less healthy and drive up everyone’s costs, and I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility.”
While President Obama did say he would like a waiver process in hardship cases, there is no reason to have a mandate other than to force people to buy insurance who don’t want to, mostly young people who are healthy and want to spend their limited income on their young careers and families. According to the Census Bureau, about 60 percent of the uninsured are under age 35, with the highest rates in the 18-24 bracket (28.1 percent uninsured) and the 25-34 (25.7 percent uninsured) bracket. This is about forcing some people who don’t want health insurance to pay for other people through a new government program. It’s more spreading the wealth around.
President Obama is poised to accept this provision for the same reason Sen. Clinton proposed it—to buy off insurance companies. Democrats learned a lesson from the 1993 HillaryCare fight when the insurance companies stopped a Washington health care takeover. The mandate is a giveaway to insurance companies to buy their support this time by forcing healthy young people who use less health care to pay insurance premiums.
Lie Number 3: If You Aren’t Rich, I Won’t Raise Your Taxes
What Obama said on the campaign trail (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.):
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
What Obama says now:
Well, it’s hard to keep up because new ideas are floated every day, but they all would involve taxing people who make less than $250,000. In fact, even his income tax hikes for the rich have now been dropped down to start at $235,000. Then there’s the soft drink excise tax, the cap-and-trade energy taxes, and most recently the VAT, a form of national sales tax. And of course the tax on health benefits I mentioned above would also break the only-tax-the-rich pledge.
What all these proposals have in common: we all pay, big-time, likely trillions of dollars in higher taxes for “free” government health care. In fact, that’s probably the biggest lie of all—that government health care is free.
Obama cancels events to attend grandmother's failing health.
x
Health Insurance/Health Care sm
I figure either one of two things will happen. Either the US will go to a single payer system, i.e., national health care covering all through federal taxes and cost control by the government, or therre will be an implosion of the private system in x number of years with something different emerging from the ashes.
With the exhorbitant cost of health insurance, mandating coverage is not an answer. Anything can be mandated. The question is how does one pay for it?Massachusetts mandated individual coverage, and already has had to exclude 20% due to the cost of a policy, anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a month for family coverage. Employers cannot afford to cover employees either due to the cost of health insurance. The current system? Well, insurance companies can charge $3,000 a month for a health insurance policy, health care providers can charge $800,000 for a 3-day hospital stay, etc. In the end no one, businesses or otherwise, will be able to keep "feeding the beast" and the current system will implode.
I think the proposal of being able to buy into Medicare is a noble one, but president Clinton pushed that years ago, and with much opposition and to no avail at that time.
I don't mean to sound so pessiimistic. Actually I'm not. There are 300 million people in this country, they have the ability to change anything, and hopefully they will take the initial steps to do that in November.
Why no coverage
My guess would be that Bush doesn't want people to know the truth. He has refused to take the advice of his advisors regarding this war. He has refused to admit that he's capable of making a mistake. He has stomped on freedom of expression by limiting his "town hall" meetings to only those who worship him. Anyone disagreeing with or questioning his policies wasn't permitted inside. It's becoming more and more evident that he and his administration certainly don't have much fondness for the truth, either, considering all the lies perpetrated by them, which is what got us into Iraq to begin with.
I'm very, very concerned about what his policies have done to the safety of everyone in America. We are certainly in a quagmire, and it will take many future Presidents to fix what Bush busted.
first too much coverage of
Obama . . .now not enough . . . can never please you guys and gals.
CNN has done coverage throughout the
Some of the interviews weird rather odd.
My husband is a vet so has VA coverage....
but he also works for the government and is a federal employee. I don't claim to know all there is to know either, but I believe the federal employee insurance depends on the best deal the government can get with a private insurance company. His happens to be Blue Cross/Blue Shield of the state we reside in. Maybe it is BC/BS across the board. But, at any rate, it is a private insurance company, not an entity for all federal employees in the United States administered from a central location. As to whether or not a person working at a VA hospital is a federal employee, my first inclination would be yes, because the government administers the VA hospitals. But, I do not know that to be a fact. The supplemental programs you talk about are state administered and vary state to state. Even Medicaid is to some degree controlled by individual states. What people are talking about when they talk about socialized medicine is like in Canada, in France, in Cuba...and other countries, where it is all centralized in the federal government. The federal government decides on the coverage, it administers the whole thing, from one place. Everyone gets the same plan, regardless. To some people, it looks good that the "rich" and the "poor" have the same plan and even if you have money you cannot jump "the line." "The line" being the waiting list for anything nonemergent. That is why Canadians come across the border in droves for procedures, etc. Recently two high risk pregnancies had to come to Seattle because there was no room for them in Canadian hospitals. I saw France's President on TV talking about how their health care plan is becoming nonsustainable and talking about having to cut benefits, raise taxes, or something soon. He talked about free market health care...so while some people might view socialized medicine as a cure-all, it isn't, and it is not sustainable, because it doesn't attack the core issue, and that is finding a way to bring costs DOWN. Historically, the free market system where there is competition brings costs down. The great minds of this country need to sit down and talk about that, reason it out, and not trot out the mother of all entitlement programs. People complain about HMOs making their health care decisions, yet are thrilled to let the government make their health care decisions for them in return for not having to pay a premium. That just makes no sense to me.
Insurance companies, health care providers, and a set of arbitrators need to sit down and work something out that will truly make health care more affordable for everyone in the country without handing it over to the government hook line and sinker. They should be able to do that. It would not happen overnight, but it could happen. I would like to see any candidate talk about that.
Covering the coverage
Just watch it before you judge anything. All this stuff can be easily checked for accuracy. The question one needs to ask him/herself is: "how accurately and fairly is my station of choice covering this stuff?"
It seems awfully odd that the 3 celebs from the alphabet stations couldn't get on that European/Middle East tour fast enough, yet McCain has been over to Iraq (and elsewhere) multiple times. None of them have gone along. How can that possibly be objective? Don't all of you want objectivity?
And why no debates between the 2 yet? McCain has been asking for months. Is that what you really want for a potential President?
Take your voting preference out of the mix before you answer these questions to yourself. If you allow the above, you aren't demanding true and unbiased information. Remember, there's a big difference between a news "reporter" and one who gives his/her opinions. There should never be a blurry line between the 2.
Convention Dishonesty
If you are watching the coverage you know much is being done...
okay, you don't believe in prayer. Couldn't you at least say you hope they will be okay? There is only so much men can do...we are talking a huge storm on a town below sea level.
What a nasty attitude.
full coverage for how much
x
Obama once again lied - see message
Henry Kissinger was just interviewed. He said he never said to sit down with "no preconditions". Once again another reason I don't trust Obama.
Ummm, the part about raising the coverage
Did you not click on the link? It has to do with Medicaid.
I, at least, read it. Thanks for finding it.
No danger of no shows. Media coverage alone
imagine that. W being upstaged by an elite, Islamic, racist, terrorist, socialist, commie pinko Nazi.
there's no media coverage because they issued a gag order -
nm
universal healthcare
Where are you getting that information about Obama and universal healthcare? The last time I heard him speak about it he wanted universal healthcare for people who couldn't get healthcare but leave the option open to people who could get their own healthcare (as they are doing now) to do so. He also spoke about companies being held more responsible to providing affordable healthcare for employees. I don't remember him ever saying to knock out the entire healthcare system and make everyone have universal healthcare.
As for McCain... I guess you like the economy and the war. He's not going to change anything if he's elected.
Well we all know you love your lord Obama, - see message
So you wouldn't see this with an open mind. Luckily enough people are seeing this as being too cultish. Compare it with North Korean videos of the kids singing to their dictator, same with Saddam Hussein's regime and the Hitler Youth Groups. As for the Lyrics "we're going to change the world". That is not the job of the "President of the United States". That means ONLY the united states. Not the whole blasted world. How would you feel if Akmindinajab (sp?) was saying he was going to change the world (of course to the way he thinks). Would you be okay with that?
Have you noticed that you get that message with almost all the Obama videos??? nm
nm
Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm
employers do not offer insurance.
This is your opinion, not a universal truth
Many historians would differ with you on that. Remember, truth is often the result of interpretation of fact. It's a slippery slope, that's for sure. But please don't proclaim your version of the truth as absolute fact. It comes across as ignorance mixed with narrow-mindedness just a wee bit, and I have been guilty of the same at times.
France is getting universal healthcare right...
Great post piglet. I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system. Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American. People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes. Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws. England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems. Here is an article I found about France's successful program:
"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/
Universal healthcare NOT the answer!!
- There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
- "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
- Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
- Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
- Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
- Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
- Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
- Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
- A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
- Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
- Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
- Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
- Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA! His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything. Stop the government spending! Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending. That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.
When did socialism and universal healthcare
nm
Does not mean Universal Healthcare is answer.
nm
Obama is a natural-born American...see message
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Now you can sleep well. I'm not voting for Obama, but I can't stand it when people stir crap up that isn't true.
Obama could win popular but still lose election - see message
It is possible. It has happened before. I think now especially in these final two days, when people are hearing Obama saying in a radio interview that he will bankrupt coal companies and skyrocket electricity bills, a lot of people are really wondering. Especially the states where coal is their major industry. They are starting to realize that a vote for the O means they'll be out of work. Along with the birth certificate issue not being resolved, and other the other numerous questions about the O people are really wondering about him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/split_decision_4
For convention coverage minus spinning, bashing, biased
Tired of attack politics? Don't need reporters telling you what you just saw or what to think about it? Want a one-on-one convention experience? Want to digest the content without the interference of disconcerting and distracting commentary? Want to be in charge of deciding what is and what is not pertinent during the course of the conventions? Do anchors and networks promoting their own hidden agendas get under your skin as they invent issues of no consequence, discount messages of great importance and try to stir up conflict? Do you find most coverage obnoxious, rude and insulting to your intelligence? Does their reporting look and sound like make believe? Do you think our candidates, conventions, parties, issues, policies and political process deserve more dignity than a big-top circus/carnival presentation?
The solution is easy. Switch that channel. Try CSPAN. Not to worry. If you feel you are missing something in the way of staying abreast with the pundit's play-by-play smear scripts, you can always get caught up on all those issues the next time you log onto MT Stars political forum.
maybe they could give it to construct universal healthcare
The economy would thrive!!! Employers would have more $$$, individuals would have more $$$. I know I spend close to $300 a month just on individual coverage. If not manditory universal coverage just allow anyone to be accepted into the Medicade program that wishes to do so.
Universal Music Publishing is calling
xx
I think Jesse Jackson's probem is that Obama is not trying to hide the problems - see message
He is not trying to hide the problems in the black community - like his speech about father's needing to stand up and become involved in their children's lives - not just "bear the fruit" and leave it to rot... Most black people want their problems kept quiet and they will take care of it themselves. Also if there is a problem in the black community, they want to take care of it themselves and not broadcast it for the world to become aware (like they do not already know). As long as there is not a prominent black figure calling attention to their problems, they don't have to recognize them.
It is the same with Bill Cosby. The black community does not like it that he calls attention through the media to the problems. If he were just working behind the scenes quietly, it would be okay.
Understand, I am not prejudiced against black people - very involved with black people and therefore know some of how they think - agree with some of it and disagree with some of it.
health plan
I have an idea, why doesnt Bush stop waging immoral wars and use our tax dollars for something constructive and life saving, like health coverage for those who die each year without it? You know why I would love a universal health plan? Because I care about my brother and sister and I care about making every Americans life better. Of course, you conservatives care about no one but yourselves. You make a few bucks, buy a home in a gated community, take the other streets so you dont pass the ghetto..and yet you claim you are christian..that is the most hypocritical statement of all. Do you not realize if Jesus walked this earth today, he would be a liberal democrat, helping the poor, the starving, the sick, the homeless, accepting all. Im so glad Im a liberal democrat. I dont think I could look at myself in the mirror or get a good nights sleep knowing my ideology is actually harming America, not helping it one bit.
Health insurance
I'm not sure about that specific point, but in her plan if you don't purchase medical insurance your wages will be garnished. How's that for communism?
Health care
Nope, he didn't say anything as extreme as HRC about health care, but if he's going to enact any type of government funded health care, how is he going to pay for it? Not to mention all the other changes he has in mind. You think the economy is bad now, you haven't seen anything yet. I believe in helping out when people need the help, but there are already too many entitlement programs that people have been on for generations and now there should be another? So that now I not only have to pay for my own (which I do, by the way) but I have to pay for others as well? Does that really seem fair to you? And no, I don't like the war, but realistically, what else can we do at this point? We can't pull out because then things would be worse than they were. I think too many people forget what happened to our country in 2001 (and the many episodes before that) - you don't hear anyone from WWII forgetting about Pearl Harbor. McCain is going to change a lot - don't be fooled into thinking he's just continuing Bush's presidency - it's not even close. Regardless of who wins, I certainly don't envy them the huge responsibilities they're going to face. I do hope that whoever wins doesn't screw it up! Not sure this country can take much more of that.
Not only that, she is a HEALTH reporter and
you could tell that Joe Biden really did think she was joking because the question was so ridiculous, about Obama being a Marxist. No wonder these things get so inflated by the right-wing media. Ridiculous questions don't deserve to be acknowledged. What a waste of time. Someone needs to ask SP why her own home newspaper in Anchorage is supporting Obama, because she is considered too risky to be in a position a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, and the McCain campaign aides have referred to her a rogue diva. Ouch, that must have hurt! Now there are some FACTS for you!!
If they really cared about our health
I agree with most - when all the smokers quit, who's next? Tax all the bars and strip clubs out of existance? Then the fast food joints? And then what - up the gas tax so we'll all feel so good about being green when we walk to work? When all else fails, there's always the churches to tax - there's a lost source of revenue for ya!
With health insurance, though
we are all driving basically the same model and we are insuring it for what could possibly happen, not what will or actually does.
Way back in the 1960s when I first started working, my company's health insurance did not cover single women for most 'female' issues, especially birth control and/or pregnancy-related issues, which has since been deemed discriminatory. Now you must cover everyone equally for every contingency.
The only way to individually ajust coverage costs would to be to exclude coverage based on genetic testing and/or family history, or maybe lifestyle issues such as alcohol or tobacco use or risky behavior like sky diving, which consumers have been fighting for years. This would probably also be deemed discriminatory.
|
